Saturday, March 29, 2008

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 29, 2008

A major tenet of leftist philosophy is a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Leftists generally are against individualism and identify more with groups. They generally believe collectivism is a better way to attain our common goals than with individual efforts and no one can deny that in some instances organized collective effort is best. One should bow to the collective wisdom to attain the common good.

Let's apply this philosophy to the current situation within the Democratic Party. We have 2 individuals running for president. Only one of them can become the nominee. It is rapidly becoming the prevaling wisdom within and without the party that a protracted primary campaign will become, and to many minds has become, damaging to the parties chances of winning in November. With every day that passes the Democrats are providing more and more fodder for future Republican commercials.

So why hasn't one of these candidates capitulated? Isn't that the proper thing to do for the "common good" of the Democratic Party? Mrs. Clinton, by just about every metric, cannot win the nomination without creating a significant schism. Why doesn't she concede? And Mr. Obama, he's relatively young and even though he has a slight but insurmountable lead, he could use some additional experience; why not agree to become Mrs. Clinton's vice-president? He could then run for president 8 years hence, several years before his 60th birthday.

The Republicans, that band of darwanistic individuals, seem to be much more civilized in this area. They traditionally rally around the putative favorite early on. This cycle was a bit more contentious than usual, but in the end they came together and much sooner than the Democrats, in no small part due to their winner take all philosophy in the primaries.

When it comes to coveting power, the Democrats are a level above the Republicans. The Republicans are just as capable of abusing their power. One need look no further than the Republican run congresses since 1994 to see how power can be abused. Or President Bush and the expondential expansion of presidential power for which he has been responsible.

But there's one difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats believe power is their birth-right. How can it not be? Their whole reason for wanting power is so they can make your life better. After all, they know what's best for you. They're not in this for themselves. It's all about making sure you're better off. And they're happy to take advantage of others in the society to accomplish that goal. They are therefore deserving of power.

There's not a penny's worth of policy difference between Obama and Clinton. Either one is fully capably of implementing the Democratic Party's quasi-socialist agenda. So the reason neither one will give up is simply this; their thirst for power is infinitely greater than their concern for the integrity of the Democratic Party. Hypocrisy in politics is unavoidable.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 27, 2008

It's getting hard to keep up with all the latest cannibalist commentary from Democrats about Democrats:

  • Bill Clinton suggested the American people have 2 good, patriotic candidates from which to choose; Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

  • James Carville, the Ragin' Cajun, said Govenor Bill Richardson's (former Clinton cabinet officer) endorsement was particularly timely, Holy Week, the same week that Judas took 30 pieces of silver. I'm so glad most Cajun's aren't like Mr. Carville.

  • Bill Richardson said he wasn't going to get in the gutter with Mr. Carville, then in the next breath said the comment by Carville was "typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton."

Not bad entertainment...

Saturday, March 22, 2008

The Obama Speech

There has been an almost euphoric aura around the campaign of Barack Obama. It continues albeit to a lesser degree after the controversy surrounding the statements of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor. Mr. Obama, being the excellent politician that he is, took immediate action and gave an excellent speech this past Tuesday inwhich he addressed the multi-faceted problem of race with an honest appraisal of the situation from both perspectives.

From the main stream press there has been almost universal encomia. Race, the most divisive issue in this country, an issue that has beeen responsible for much suffering on many levels has come into this presidential contest; you knew it would. While the speech was very good, it was not perfect and raised serious questions regarding his commitment to his principles and ability to lead.

He made a moral equivalence between his pastor whose comments negatively influenced literally thousands of people on a regular basis as the same as his white grandmother's racial comments that made him "cringe".

He made a second moral equivalence between Ms. Ferraro's comments about Mr. Obama's success being due to his being black and the implication by "some" of her "deep-seated racial bias" and Reverend Wright's incendiary remarks; to which she took significant umbrage. This exchange didn't do anything but accelerate the growing schism within the party.

But these were relatively minor errors.

In his speech Mr. Obama said, "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren." Noble words.

Senator Obama needs to explain why he didn't engage his former pastor in a colloquy regarding his developing post-racial ideology and how it conflicts with liberation theology. Liberation theology, as espoused by Reverend Wright, runs counter to his above stated reason for running for president. So one cannot be blamed for having some doubt either about his committment to those noble words or his ability to effect change. If he can't or won't confront his own pastor and congregation and challenge them to move toward those noble words, how can we expect him to challenge and move a country?

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Supreme Court today took up, for the first time since 1939, a Second Amendment case that goes to its heart.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the article I read I'm heartened that some of the justices and Justice Kennedy in particular reads the amendment correctly by seeing the first clause as subordinate to the second.

The crucial question will be to what degree the Court interprets the extent to which the first clause provides the grounds for regulation. But we'll have to wait till June to learn their decision.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 16, 2008

I alluded to a potential problem for Senator Obama in my initial piece where I endorsed John McCain. The problem had to do with Obama's church; its warm relations with Louis Farrakhan and the questions it raises about who Barack Obama is. The revelations, if you pardon the pun, of the last few days regarding the good Reverend Jeremiah Wright exacerbates the problem exponentially.

What a bunch of vitriolic extreme left-wing nonsense. Unbelievable. Well, no, actually very believable. There is a strain of African-American "liberation theology", which came out of the civil rights movement, that is extreme. In one of the sermons, the Reverend said the U.S. knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and that the U.S. government was responsible for HIV genocide. This is the kind of rhetoric one would expect from a student of extreme leftist Howard Zinn who wrote the admittedly biased "A Peoples History of the United States.

Michele Norris of NPR on "Meet the Press" today suggested that the "tone" was nothing that you don't hear every Sunday morning in many African-American churches. She also noted that Obama attempted to explain the rhetoric as being the words of "men of ferocious intelligence" who came out of Civil Rights movement. However, Obama also says that words mean things. He therefore has a problem explaining the disconnect between his vision of inclusiveness and his church's anti-American and somewhat racial separationist rhetoric.

David Broder of "The Washington Post", also on "Meet the Press", asked the all important question, "What was it about Rev. Wright that attracted Obama when he had, as a newcomer to Chicago, choice of any number of churches and pastors to go to?" I await an answer.

The rhetoric of the sermons and the enthusiasm with which they were accepted by the congregation help us to understand Michelle Obama's (Barack's wife) more angry and aggressive tone. You may recall the small controversy she created a few weeks ago with her comments about never having been proud of American until now and America being a "mean" country.

Will this be used by Hillary to influence those super delegates about the electability of Mr. Obama? They had better be careful if they do but I'm not sure they'll need to. This furor will raise questions in their minds. The reason for the super delegates in the first place is to make sure they nominate an electable person.

It's a win-win for the non-leftists in this country. If Obama wins the nomination he becomes damaged and hopefully somewhat easier to beat in November. If Hillary manages to get the super delegates to ignore the elected delegate and popular count and vote for her she will create a schism in the Democratic Party that will provide the best chance for winning in November.

The question for those Democratic super delegates is this; which is better, a unified Democratic Party around the compromised Barack Obama or a deeply divided Democratic Party with Hillary Clinton and her baggage. I continue to pray for the latter but anticipate the former.

There is one other possibility. One or the other of these campaigns will take an objective look at the political landscape and being a good liberal, will defer to the other and offer to be number 2 on the ticket, thereby sacrificing for the greater good of their Party.

Logically, this should be Hillary. But if it happens it will be Barack, who will thereby insure his nomination in 2012 when Hillary totally screws up, becomes a one termer and the worse president in history, surpassing even the incompetence of George Bush.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 13, 2008

Watching the Democrats is so much fun this year. God (if there is a God) couldn't have scripted this better. As my boss would say, "grab a bag of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the show."

A few recent points:

  • Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's attack dog called Obama "Ken Starr" for demanding the Clinton Library release contributors to that library; for demanding that the Clintons release their tax records and that they allow the national archives to release her schedule from when she was First Lady. Subliminal; Obama is really kinda like a really bad Republican.
  • Mrs. Clinton's reference to Obama not being a Muslim with the qualifier "as far as I know". Subliminal; perhaps he IS a Muslim.
  • Clinton campaign publicises a photograph of Obama in the local garb of some country that implies he is a Muslim. Subliminal; see he really IS a Muslim.
  • Mrs. Clinton said McCain is more ready to be president than Obama. If this doesn't bring home the point the the Clinton's will say and do ANYTHING (even praise her putative Republican opponent to Obama's detriment) to win, nothing else will. Clintonian needs come before the party's need. Subliminal; Obama is WORSE than a Republican.
  • Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter says Barack Obama is ahead only because he's black. So the Democratic candidate for Vice President in 1984 has been branded a racist by the media. Political correctness, which has been foisted on the country by the left, comes full circle to hurt the left. And it ain't over yet folks.

It appears, as things stand now, we will have a Federal Government under complete Democratic control come January. So, take some time to enjoy the political season and derive some satisfaction as events unfold, even if feelings of schadenfreude are all there is.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Wayne Allyn Root, Candidate for Libertarian Nomination for President

I was introduced to Wayne Allyn Root on March 1 at the Georgia Libertarian Party Convention. All I can say is, extremely impressive. I've seen and heard many Libertarian politicians over the years but this the first man who is charismatic enough to bring the simple but unpopular message of libertarianism to the electorate. He actually smiles while delivering a speech. He is engaging and speaks in an extemporaneous manner. I'm sure this was a well rehearsed "stump speech", but nonetheless it was impressively delivered. An interesting factoid is he graduated the same day with the same degree (Political Science) from the same university (Columbia) as Barack Obama.

At the convention he debated a wacko Roman Catholic named Imperato who's raison d'entre is his connections with the Vatican who will "endorse" him for president and thereby deliver 31 million catholics to the Libertarian Party. A genuine nut case (a rich nut case, but a nut case nonetheless) and someone who would normally fit well into the Libertarian Party; a party primarily consisting of Atheists, Deists with a few token Christians and a sprinkling of Eastern rite followers.

Root seems to be sympathetic to the War on Radical Islamist terrorists while acknowledging that the war in Iraq was run incompetently. He sees the existential threat posed by these radical factions, something classic libertarians deny; I give you exhibit A, Ron Paul. Root comes across as an optimistic person. Ron Paul always looks and acts angry. And he gets into the weeds of libertarian philosophy, which is antithetical to the socialist trend we are currently traveling. We need someone like Root who can bring the message in such a way that people will be willing to learn more and assimilate the philosophy into their worldview, a time-consuming educational process.

Wayne Allyn Root deserves to be watched closely. He doesn't have a serious chance this year but he or someone like him is the future of the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party is the only 3rd party that has a chance to break through the current polity. Give him a look-see.